Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule Changes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Rule Changes?

    When it comes to a tie or not a tie, do whatever you want to entertain the fans, but the points are to be awarded based on regular 5v5 hockey, not 4v4, not 3v3 and not an all-star skills competition event.

    I do like that there is a juncture where the NCAA throws in the towel and says "Anything that happens after this moment doesn't matter to us. It is a tie game..." I would like to see OT be 10 minutes for NCAA purposes, but I'm ok with 5 min.

    There should also be a rule in place that embellishment may NOT be called for the same play where a minor or major penalty was called. There are only two possibilities:
    An infraction DID occur.
    An infraction did NOT occur.

    I'm so tired of seeing matching penalties in these cases. So essentially the ref is saying:
    "Yes, the player was crosschecked and that is a penalty so I raised my arm so everyone knew that was against the rules. But then I didn't like the way the player fell down after they got crosschecked so I'm not going to really penalize the offending team..."
    Last edited by JohnsonsJerseys; 02-25-2020, 01:47 PM.
    Preserving Michigan Tech's Hockey History
    https://www.johnsonsjerseys.net
    Originally posted by geezer
    Tech has the best of everything, even the best jersey nerd.
    Originally posted by manurespreader
    ...I really enjoyed listening to Ryan Johnson. He sounded intelligent.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Rule Changes?

      Originally posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
      When it comes to a tie or not a tie, do whatever you want to entertain the fans, but the points are to be awarded based on regular 5v5 hockey, not 4v4, not 3v3 and not an all-star skills competition event.

      I do like that there is a juncture where the NCAA throws in the towel and says "Anything that happens after this moment doesn't matter to us. It is a tie game..." I would like to see OT be 10 minutes for NCAA purposes, but I'm ok with 5 min.

      There should also be a rule in place that embellishment may NOT be called for the same play where a minor or major penalty was called. There are only two possibilities:
      An infraction DID occur.
      An infraction did NOT occur.

      I'm so tired of seeing matching penalties in these cases. So essentially the ref is saying:
      "Yes, the player was crosschecked and that is a penalty so I raised my arm so everyone knew that was against the rules. But then I didn't like the way the player fell down after they got crosschecked so I'm not going to really penalize the offending team..."
      +1

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Rule Changes?

        Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
        I do think the NCAA has even dumber rules than the NHL on this. "OK, we're going to play some overtime, but just a little bit, and if that doesn't resolve it, then we'll call it a tie."
        Either play it all the way out with no point for the team that loses, call it after 60 minutes and split the points, or do some sort of a hybrid where you produce a winner through other means (3 on 3 or shootout) and both teams get points. But the current setup is inconsistent in design.
        There is nothing dumber than giving out more total points for a game that goes to overtime than for a game that does not like the NHL does. You are incentivizing low scoring hockey that results in a lot of regulation ties by doing this.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Rule Changes?

          Delay of game penalty for attempting a change during an icing or other situation where the offending team is not allowed to change (hand pass in defensive zone, etc).

          Eliminate the blue line during 3-on-3 OT. Let's face it, that's not going anywhere. May as well make it more exciting.

          On a similar subject, no extra timeout for games going into OT except postseason games that go multiple OTs (additional timeout not awarded until start of 2nd OT).

          I like the delay of game penalty for lost coach's challenge, although I would cap it at 2 lost challenges per game.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Rule Changes?

            Just my own thoughts, but I like the NCAA rule about overtime. Since different situations (conference play, Beanpot, etc) require different methods, I like it that the NCAA says....
            Do what it necessary among these options....but after 5 min of 5v5 OT, it's a tie to us. That is a rule that makes perfect sense. Now, for Sean's sake, I would like a slight adjustment..... Beanpot Final: Horn at 5 min (NCAA tie game). No ice re-surfacing, no nothing. Immediate restart with 15 min on clock for OT....And, continue.

            If the NCAA wants to give the conferences liberty (and they do - for example, each conf has the right to make their own rules about postseason tournaments and the auto-bid, and you don't want the NCAA overseeing that), then my personal opinion is that there is no perfect rule as to what the conferences should do for OT. I'd be fine with nothing after the 5 min, actually.

            As for diving/embellishment.....It seems like this: Diving is trying to draw a call when there was no infraction. So, if diving is called, there can't be hooking, or slashing or anything else. Embellishment goes along with another infraction - it's an effort to make it look worse to draw a call. So, if embellishment is called, there needs to be holding or hooking or something as well. But, NOT a major penalty. If a major is called, there can't be embellishment, because it's so serious already that the victim couldn't have tried to make it look worse.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Rule Changes?

              Originally posted by jflory81 View Post
              There is nothing dumber than giving out more total points for a game that goes to overtime than for a game that does not like the NHL does. You are incentivizing low scoring hockey that results in a lot of regulation ties by doing this.
              I don't disagree that it's dumb to have 2 and 3 point games. But what I find outrageously dumb with the college rules versus the NHL is with why college plays a 5v5 5 minute overtime...and then calls a game a tie for points purposes. You already had 60 minutes of 5v5. So now we have a system where some games are 60 minutes, and some are 65. If a 3v3 or shootout win shouldn't count as much as a regulation win, why should a 64th minute win count the same as a regulation win?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Rule Changes?

                Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
                I don't disagree that it's dumb to have 2 and 3 point games. But what I find outrageously dumb with the college rules versus the NHL is with why college plays a 5v5 5 minute overtime...and then calls a game a tie for points purposes. You already had 60 minutes of 5v5. So now we have a system where some games are 60 minutes, and some are 65. If a 3v3 or shootout win shouldn't count as much as a regulation win, why should a 64th minute win count the same as a regulation win?
                I suppose the reason is.....college games are operating under 2 different kinds of oversight: NCAA and "whatever Conference you are in....or....whoever organized the Beanpot or whatever the name of the tourney is"

                NCAA rules are w/l/t....so, play 60 min. Then, play OT (no need to play 65 min if the score is 6-1. But, if it's 2-2, you MIGHT get a winner in 5 minutes). These are essentially the NHL rules which existed prior to the 4v4 or the SO rules. No one ever complained about the 5 min OT.

                Then, there are the organizers' rules, which are different.

                I agree...it seems hashed together, but when you consider that there are 2 different governing bodies, you can understand why it is that way.

                NCAA has some strangeness in this way as well......All regular season games, including Beanpot-style tourneys, are called ties for NCAA PWR purposes at 65 min. But, conference tourney games are not so. They all go to a win or loss. Why is that?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Rule Changes?

                  Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
                  ...why should a 64th minute win count the same as a regulation win?
                  Because it is played under the same rules as regulation time would be my argument. But awarding points for some other kind of game with sticks and pucks is a "no" for me.

                  Back when college football starting doing their dumb overtime "mini-field" games, Mike Golic put it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) Why do we play real football for 60 minutes to determine a winner and if that doesn't work then you get this circus of getting the ball at the 20 yard line determines a winner. That's exactly what playing hockey with less than five skaters is... something other than the game of hockey.

                  If the world wasn't ok with low scoring or ties in sporting events, Soccer (sorry, football as everyone else calls it) would have been wiped off the planet decades ago.

                  Giving a team a point in the standings because they have one guy that can put a puck past the goalie in a trick shot competition is NOT hockey. I'm not saying you can't have shootouts, but stop awarding conference points based on them.
                  Preserving Michigan Tech's Hockey History
                  https://www.johnsonsjerseys.net
                  Originally posted by geezer
                  Tech has the best of everything, even the best jersey nerd.
                  Originally posted by manurespreader
                  ...I really enjoyed listening to Ryan Johnson. He sounded intelligent.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Rule Changes?

                    I don't have a problem with calling both hooking and embellishment/diving at the same time if it's egregious. The embellishment would come after the initial infraction really. Any attempt at curtailing theatrics on the ice is fine by me. Unless you guys are suggesting simply calling embellishment then. I would also be ok with that.

                    I really don't view 4v4 OT as a gimmick or that it's not "real" hockey. Shootout, yes. But 4 v 4 is the logical next step if you want to reduce ties. Or a 10 minute 5 v 5 OT. But I would go with a 4v4 five minute OT and if nobody scores it's a tie. No shootout, everyone go home.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Rule Changes?

                      Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                      I don't have a problem with calling both hooking and embellishment/diving at the same time if it's egregious. The embellishment would come after the initial infraction really. Any attempt at curtailing theatrics on the ice is fine by me. Unless you guys are suggesting simply calling embellishment then. I would also be ok with that.

                      I really don't view 4v4 OT as a gimmick or that it's not "real" hockey. Shootout, yes. But 4 v 4 is the logical next step if you want to reduce ties. Or a 10 minute 5 v 5 OT. But I would go with a 4v4 five minute OT and if nobody scores it's a tie. No shootout, everyone go home.
                      embellishment and diving are 2 different things to me. The words mean things. Embellishment.....You can't embellish something that doesn't exist. So, yes, you can have a hook, and also embellishment at the same time. But, diving, in my mind, is total fakery. No infraction, just acting to get a call. "Diving" if defined that way, must be called on its own.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Rule Changes?

                        Originally posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
                        Because it is played under the same rules as regulation time would be my argument. But awarding points for some other kind of game with sticks and pucks is a "no" for me.

                        Back when college football starting doing their dumb overtime "mini-field" games, Mike Golic put it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) Why do we play real football for 60 minutes to determine a winner and if that doesn't work then you get this circus of getting the ball at the 20 yard line determines a winner. That's exactly what playing hockey with less than five skaters is... something other than the game of hockey.

                        If the world wasn't ok with low scoring or ties in sporting events, Soccer (sorry, football as everyone else calls it) would have been wiped off the planet decades ago.

                        Giving a team a point in the standings because they have one guy that can put a puck past the goalie in a trick shot competition is NOT hockey. I'm not saying you can't have shootouts, but stop awarding conference points based on them.
                        I'm neutral on shootouts and 3v3, I just don't see what sense it makes to say, Ties are OK, but not 60 minute ties!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Rule Changes?

                          One 20 minute sudden death OT and then call it a tie in the regular season. Post season keep going until there is a winner. I do not like the OT gimmicks.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Rule Changes?

                            Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
                            I don't disagree that it's dumb to have 2 and 3 point games. But what I find outrageously dumb with the college rules versus the NHL is with why college plays a 5v5 5 minute overtime...and then calls a game a tie for points purposes. You already had 60 minutes of 5v5. So now we have a system where some games are 60 minutes, and some are 65. If a 3v3 or shootout win shouldn't count as much as a regulation win, why should a 64th minute win count the same as a regulation win?
                            Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
                            I'm neutral on shootouts and 3v3, I just don't see what sense it makes to say, Ties are OK, but not 60 minute ties!
                            It seems this same discussion happens every two years when it is a rules change year. College hockey has always had overtime, going back over 100 years. By 1928-29 (the earliest NCAA Ice Hockey Rules book I have) overtime consisted of up to 2 10-minute regulation periods (like in football, aka soccer) when the full period was played regardless of whether a goal was scored. If the game was tied after the first overtime period a second overtime period was played before the game was declared a tie. Beginning in 1937-38 overtime was shortened to one regulation 10-minute period. Beginning with the 1949-50 season overtime was changed to sudden-death. The change to a 5-minute overtime period happened between 1987-88 and 1989-90 (in the 1986-87 rules book it was a 10 minute overtime and in the 1990-91 rules book it was a 5 minute overtime (and not a new change)).

                            Sean
                            Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
                            Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

                            BU Hockey Games
                            BU Hockey highlights and extras
                            NCAA Hockey Financials
                            Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games
                            I need a kidney; looking for a donor

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Rule Changes?

                              Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                              embellishment and diving are 2 different things to me. The words mean things. Embellishment.....You can't embellish something that doesn't exist. So, yes, you can have a hook, and also embellishment at the same time. But, diving, in my mind, is total fakery. No infraction, just acting to get a call. "Diving" if defined that way, must be called on its own.
                              Couldn't agree more.

                              Either it's one (an actual infraction) or the other (a dive, absent an actual infraction).

                              I've hated the embellishment call from Day One. It contradicts logic.

                              Waaaay stupid.
                              Last edited by Fishman'81; 02-25-2020, 06:02 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Rule Changes?

                                Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                                I don't have a problem with calling both hooking and embellishment/diving at the same time if it's egregious. The embellishment would come after the initial infraction really. Any attempt at curtailing theatrics on the ice is fine by me. Unless you guys are suggesting simply calling embellishment then. I would also be ok with that.

                                I really don't view 4v4 OT as a gimmick or that it's not "real" hockey. Shootout, yes. But 4 v 4 is the logical next step if you want to reduce ties. Or a 10 minute 5 v 5 OT. But I would go with a 4v4 five minute OT and if nobody scores it's a tie. No shootout, everyone go home.
                                I hate the embellishment penalty if there was actually a penalty. Easy cop out for the ref on a marginal call. If a guy embellishes a non-penalty, fine, give him a penalty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X